(January 20, 2016 at 5:52 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote:(January 20, 2016 at 4:15 pm)Drich Wrote: Why in the world would I list specific instances where I have incited some of you into a flaming rage if this sort of behavior is no long tolerated from theists?So, you define victory as your propensity to make people angry? Well, you’re very good at that. Totally in your element.
I have also seen where huggie has beaten one person specifically with facts, and that person lash out against huggie with personal attacks.
So it's not just me.
This is what I mean by beat back into a corner: You can no longer defend facts as they pertain to the topic so you lash out at anything, or the more popular response is to try change the topic/red herring rather than speak topically.
An Awesome non member specific instance is in my last big thread about the exodus. The standard atheist argument was beaten back (no evidence/can't move the time line, because the movie provided a plausible argument and physical evidence for both) to which point the topic stalled.. then someone out of the blue posts a picture of the ark... as if one story in Genesis had anything to do with the exodus... So then ATR takes on the task of pushing back this topic. One that I ignore because another one of you brings up slavery, and as slavery is topical to the exodus I go through all you all cared to talk about with it. This is why you all feel you do not loose a argument... (Because you do not ever run out of stuff to argue.)
It doesn't even have to be about God. It can be about something as mundane as what dialog is given in a movie or book and or it's meaning. once the theist properly quotes the source material in question the topic generally turns. It's like with you content is irrelevant, it's who has the last word that wins...
Now on our side of the fence this can be a little frustrating, so the only way to drive a point home is to 'break the spirit' so to speak. to stop being friendly and force a concession or force the atheist to retreat and abandon the topic. "To have the last word, to redirect the subject on a specific member and what and why they believe what they do, do not allow a topical shift/way out, until the leave or have a melt down." (which again is old hat when an atheist argues with a Christian)
I've done this personally on a few occasions, and for my trouble in one instance was told if I were to continue to peruse this line of thought I would have "my brains beaten out"...
The younger guys tend to roll with the punches. The older more established people take great wounding offense to such a display.
So again my question is.. are we/theist meant to simply roll over and let the atheist have their 'victories?' _Or can we force an issue with an atheist, as Athiests Force issues with Theists when they feel they have them on their heels?
Not that I would each and every time... I just need to know what the policies are here now.
It's funny how you only see one side when I clearly point out that trying to evoke an emotional response, is typically how the atheist side of an atheist/theist debate works. Otherwise why would you point out an unfair take on what I just said?
Again, when atheists can't answer facts a theist provides, the topic is generally changed, if that new topic is refuted or better yet identified as a red herring and you all are generally made to stay on the original topic then then out come the paper graders/spelling and grammar checks, and if I push past that out come the personal insults, and in a few cases attacks on my wife's past. This is my experience in just about every topic I have ever posted here. My question was, as a theist can we do the same without reprisal?
kinda like how you sought to turn the tables on me to again evoke an emotional response by claiming the only way I win an argument is to insight anger. I want to know if I can then take the facts of a given topic and beat you with them, till you acknowledge or concede/go silent, or Can I set up illustrative scenarios showing atheist hypocrisy in a given senerio? Or are these things off limits to the theist?
In the end my only goal is truth, and how to get to it. if it means hurting some feelings then fine, if however it means working with kit gloves that's ok too.. I just need to know the operational parameters. I am not very good with all the unsaid rules of social interactions. I thought I had a fair understanding of the limits, but this new rule and Stimbo's ominous warning about 'always getting the last word' has me doubting my understanding of how this forum works given this new rule.